4.7 Article

Experimental study of the behavioural mechanisms underlying self-organization in human crowds

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2009.0405

关键词

self-organization; crowds; pedestrian interactions; social force model; controlled experiments

资金

  1. CNRS (Concerted Action: 'Complex Systems in Human and Social Sciences')
  2. University Paul Sabatier (Aides Ponctuelles de Cooperation)
  3. ETH Zurrich
  4. CNRS
  5. French Ministry of Education, Research and Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In animal societies as well as in human crowds, many observed collective behaviours result from self-organized processes based on local interactions among individuals. However, models of crowd dynamics are still lacking a systematic individual-level experimental verification, and the local mechanisms underlying the formation of collective patterns are not yet known in detail. We have conducted a set of well-controlled experiments with pedestrians performing simple avoidance tasks in order to determine the laws ruling their behaviour during interactions. The analysis of the large trajectory dataset was used to compute a behavioural map that describes the average change of the direction and speed of a pedestrian for various interaction distances and angles. The experimental results reveal features of the decision process when pedestrians choose the side on which they evade, and show a side preference that is amplified by mutual interactions. The predictions of a binary interaction model based on the above findings were then compared with bidirectional flows of people recorded in a crowded street. Simulations generate two asymmetric lanes with opposite directions of motion, in quantitative agreement with our empirical observations. The knowledge of pedestrian behavioural laws is an important step ahead in the understanding of the underlying dynamics of crowd behaviour and allows for reliable predictions of collective pedestrian movements under natural conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据